in short - no....
that is a programming question and you did not provide code sample. you need to put more effort in,
you can try both and see the difference yourself.
then if you have question, post your code and ask for help. you did not even try it but you are asking others to sacrifice their own time on something that benefits someone acting lazy.
you may have done plenty digging but that is irrelevant here. the only things that counts in forum are things you post and - you shared nothing. therefore there is nothing to attract interest of someone like me. still vague request and very clear that my initial assessment was correct so my previous reply stands.
for example, there is no mention of used search engine, search terms etc. and vague "i searched all internet" is just a common substitute for "i did not bother so why don't you just give me what i want". cannot speak for others but to me this is a lazy approach and that does not motivate me to help...
if you want to learn robot programming, get a robot. i am a poor substitute for a robot. i am opinionated, make mistakes, and do what i want, not what others expect or want from me.
so back to my point - for me to become interested, it would be good to see some effort in the posts used to ask for help - which i still don't see here.
i see forum as a place to share and learn, not a place where handful of people work for free to solve problems of other people.
so what did you do to compare the two? what did you see in the documentation and source code how did you interpret it?
judging by the KSS8.5 code, question "what is different" can be answered as quite few things. for example code length, used variables, number of parameters etc. are all different.
GLOBAL DEF SET_CD_PARAMS (Index :IN)
DECL INT Index
IF (Index > 0) AND (Index < 31) THEN
USE_CM_PRO_SETTING (Index)
ELSE
SET_CM_PRO_INACTIVE()
ENDIF
ENDGLOBAL DEF SET_TQ_VALUES ( TQ_AX1:IN, TQ_AX2:IN, TQ_AX3:IN, TQ_AX4:IN, TQ_AX5:IN, TQ_AX6:IN)
INT I, TQ_AX1, TQ_AX2, TQ_AX3, TQ_AX4, TQ_AX5, TQ_AX6
IF $IMPROVED_COLLMON== TRUE THEN
ON_ERROR_PROCEED
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[1]=TQ_AX1
IF $ERR.NUMBER == 0 THEN
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[2]=TQ_AX2
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[3]=TQ_AX3
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[4]=TQ_AX4
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[5]=TQ_AX5
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[6]=TQ_AX6
ELSE
FOR I=1 TO 12
$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[I]=$COLLMON_TOL_PRO_DEF[I]
ENDFOR
ERR_CLEAR($ERR)
ENDIF
FOR I=1 TO 12
COLLMON_TOL_PRO[I]=$COLLMON_TOL_PRO[I]
ENDFOR
COLLMON_IDX=0
$COLLMON_IDX = 0
ELSE
ON_ERROR_PROCEED
$TORQMON[1]=TQ_AX1
IF $ERR.NUMBER == 0 THEN
$TORQMON[2]=TQ_AX2
$TORQMON[3]=TQ_AX3
$TORQMON[4]=TQ_AX4
$TORQMON[5]=TQ_AX5
$TORQMON[6]=TQ_AX6
ELSE
FOR I=1 TO 12
$TORQMON[I]=$TORQMON_DEF[I]
ENDFOR
ERR_CLEAR($ERR)
ENDIF
ENDIF
ENDI think the difference comes from the new collision monitoring function. There is an old collmon package and a new one. The first solved everything on the application side in windows. The new one uses the real-time system to solve the collmon problem and is therefore more sensitive and faster if it needs to react. I do not have the details but afaik both are still possible to be used in parallel. Hence this might explain why there are two methods and the switch COLLMON_TOL_PRO. I do not remeber the details but it is worth asking KUKA for it.
Fubini
however I couldn't find the definition of COLLMON_TOL_PRO.
A good way to find declarations and use of variables, subs and functions is to do a full text search in WoV project or archive. Things that are visible in source code are generally not covered well in documentation. That variable is an array of 12 elements (one for each axis).
i don't recall seeing $ADAP_ACC set to #NONE.
it should be out of box set to #STEP2.
